List of flawed ships

[Sigoroth]

Ah, Horizon just pm'd me his stats. Well, the only objection I'd have to this profile would be that dorsal weaponry doesn't appear on the others so why should it appear here?

I think that 4 torps would be a better fit (2 AC 4 torps no guns). Of course this opens the question why couldn't the other variants have 4 torps. The potential reason would be that they prefer the extra swinging firepower to combine with a broadside against the primary target. Not quite as strong though, and not quite believable. I'd prefer not to change the other 2 variants beyond just adding the prow armour. Therefore, I think the simplest and most elegant solution remains to just delete this ship.

[RCgothic]

Argh this post was only supposed to be previewed. Still being modified.

Chaos:
Acheron: Increase lances to 60cm @+10 pts [Sigoroth, RCgothic, horizon, Plaxor]

Retaliator: 3LB per side [Admiral d Artagnan, Sigoroth, RCgothic, Plaxor, Horizon ]

Infidel: Give two turrets [Sigoroth, RCgothic, Horizon, Plaxor]
Iconoclast: Reduce by 5pts [RCgothic, Plaxor, BaronIveagh, Sigoroth, horizon,]
- The Cobra has equivalent firepower in torps alone, and doesn't have to get close to use it. The Iconoclast is a more vulnerable design.

Idolator: Revise with new Fraal tech [Plaxor, Sigoroth, RCgothic(as already price dropped to 40), Horizon], LFR lance [Horizon, RCgothic(as already price dropped to 40), Sigoroth]

GCs:
Add several upgrade options [Sigoroth, Plaxor (yes to anything non-dorsal), Commander, RCgothic, BaronIveagh, Horizon (no to anything but torps)]
My consent to this is only because I want to see the idea developed. I may also come down against dorsal weaponry completely.

IN:
Retribution: +10 points (to 355) [Sigoroth, RCgothic, BaronIveagh, horizon, Vaaish] - The new package is far more effective.

Apocalypse: Shooting at 60cm causes WB Offline critical to side that fires instead of Thrusters Critical [Sigoroth,RCgothic (I think the BM idea is better), Horizon] Dorsal WBs to FP9 [RCgothic(still not entirely convinced, but would prefer to FP6), Sigoroth, Commander, Horizon, Plaxor], Blast marker instead of critical [RCgothic,Sigoroth, Plaxor]

Exorcist: Increase LBs to 6, increase cost [Sigoroth, RCgothic, BaronIveagh, Commander, Admiral Artagnan, Horizon, Plaxor (no increase in LBs, others fine), Vaaish]
- If the Retaliator gets an increase, surely the Exorcist should too?

Avenger: Drop Cost (From 200pts or 220pts? A target price would be better)[Horizon, Vaaish, Sigoroth (in addition to wb increase), RCgothic(make more specific) ], FP 20 [Plaxor, Commander (45cm), Sigoroth, horizon, RCgothic], Increase Range to 45cm [BaronIveagh, Admiral_D_Artagnan, RCgothic, Sigoroth], +5 Speed [BaronIveagh (instead of 45cm), RCgothic, Sigoroth]

Overlord: add 60cm range option [Sigoroth, Plaxor, RCgothic(For +10pts), BaronIveagh]
- Who said anything about this beng free? (as in your latest post) Would expect it to cost +10pts.

Defiant:Use Horizon's Profile [RCgothic, Horizon, Plaxor, Sigoroth], Torps 4 [RCgothic, BaronIveagh, Sigoroth, Horizon]
- The space for Dorsal WBs is created by the LBs taking up half the internal space they would if they were a full S2 per side.


Firestorms: Lance to 45cm[BaronIveagh, RCgothic (With the cost reduction there's no need), Horizon, Sigoroth, Plaxor]

Confirmed Changes (by all 5 in solidarity):
Chaos:
Despoiler: Use modified stats (Horizons)
Devestation: Lance range @ 45cm
Styx: costs 260
Idolator: Cost 40
Retaliator Side wbs @45cm

IN:
Overlord: Side WBs fp12@45cm, Costs 225
Retribution: Side WBs fp18@45cm
Apocalypse: No penalty for firing lances up to 45cm. - I withdraw my support for this if the BM idea goes through.
Tyrant: 180 base cost
Endeavor/Endurance/Defiant: 6+ prow, maintains 90' turns
Dictactor: 210 points cost.
Oberon:Prow and Dorsal Weapons at 60cm, costs 355
Mars: Cost 260
Armageddon: Cost 235
Firestorms: Cost 35
Falchion 2 turrets

[horizon]

The Cobra has equivalent firepower in torps alone, and doesn't have to get close to use it. The Iconoclast is a more vulnerable design.[/quote]
Cobra needs to reload. Iconoclast doesn't.

[BaronIveagh]

Ah, Horizon just pm'd me his stats. Well, the only objection I'd have to this profile would be that dorsal weaponry doesn't appear on the others so why should it appear here?

I think that 4 torps would be a better fit (2 AC 4 torps no guns). Of course this opens the question why couldn't the other variants have 4 torps. The potential reason would be that they prefer the extra swinging firepower to combine with a broadside against the primary target. Not quite as strong though, and not quite believable. I'd prefer not to change the other 2 variants beyond just adding the prow armour. Therefore, I think the simplest and most elegant solution remains to just delete this ship.

He's not sent me it yet, but it sounds like he wants a pure carrier to be some sort of Jr strike cruiser from this description. 

This is completely inverse to the intent of this design. It's like the Invincible class fast battleship.  It's not meant to be a line ship, and to try and use it that way WILL get it killed.  I've been using it's speedy brother the Enforcer class for years in my old fast IN fleet, and actually favored it over the dictator despite a HP and LB size drop, as it was easy to maneuver it out of danger. 

[horizon]

ARGH! BLINDNESS| :/

Defiant
hits 6
speed 20
turns 90
armour 6+/5+
turrets 2
shields 1

prow torps str.2
prow battery str2 (30cm lfr)
port launch bay str1
starboard launch bay str1
dorsal battery str2 (30cm lfr)

(these stats have been posted about thirty times on this forum by now)

[RCgothic]

Ninja'd by Horizon.

It's not a mini strike cruiser. The purpose of the Voss ships, unlike the Dauntless and Enforcer, is to support the main line. With a 6+ prow, the Defiant won't be any more vulnerable than the other Voss ships, and its CAP may come in useful. Combined with a dictator it enables S6 Attack waves, which are more offensive than the more defensive S4 and S2 waves.

It may not be perfect, but it fulfils the role it's meant for.

[commander]

Well, one really last time to talk about Avenger. 

My opinion.
The design trades dorsal weaponry for an extra hardpoint on the sides. Fluff states that they were used as suicidal linebreakers, sitting in the middle of the enemy fleet and pump out shots. The rest of the fleet than shows up for the mopping up.
To get into the enemy fleet, they will take damage, heavy damage. To perform their role they need heavy short ranged firepower. They have the juice, let them have the fun to. 
FP up in strength (at least 20!!!  ), range can stay at 30.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Admiral_D_Artagnan please tell me if you are for or against each change. You can pick multiples from the same one, although not all will necessarily go through.
   
Acheron lances range - probably no. I don't think it needs the range upgrade. It really is good for it's points.
Infidels 2 turrets proposition
Iconoclast -5 points
Idolator Fraal tech revision
LFR lance on the Idolator - I'll skip the escorts for now.
GC Upgrades - depends on the upgrades. Prow torps should be enough.
Retribution Increase in cost to 355 - For FP18@45 cm 355 points to 365 should be good.
Apocalypse Port/Starboard critical instead of thrusters - Have to playtest.
Apocalypse blast marker instead of critical - Have to playtest.
Dorsal fp to 9 on apocalypse - I'm good with this.
Avenger Dropping cost - Not enough.
Avenger at fp20 - Workable but not enough to cover the cost disparity.
Avenger at rng 45 - Prefer this.
Avenger +5 speed - No, conflicts with the other Vengeances.
Overlord dropping by 10 points (This is after the change we already made, making its wbs 12@45cm) and adding a 60cm range option (fp10@60) free swap. - No need to drop points. Just change the broadside stats and add the option.
Using horizons profile on the defiant - nah.
4 torps on defiant - nah.
Firestorms 45cm range lance - And give the SM access to 2-6 45 cm lances? Nah.

Done with my answers.

[horizon]

Curious admiral, what's your idea about the Defiant then? *Delete* ?

[RCgothic]

Why not use Horizon's profile for the Defiant?

It Really REALLY needs the torps as well, because who bothers to risk a RO check for just two AC? The FP4 F/L/R Wbs and S2 F Torps roughly balance out with S2 F/R/L Lances, so the only real difference is an exchange of some of its original firepower for torpedoes to help it with RO checks.

This is a change that the Defiant really needs.

[BaronIveagh]

ARGH! BLINDNESS| :/

Defiant
hits 6
speed 20
turns 90
armour 6+/5+
turrets 2
shields 1

prow torps str.2
prow battery str2 (30cm lfr)
port launch bay str1
starboard launch bay str1
dorsal battery str2 (30cm lfr)

(these stats have been posted about thirty times on this forum by now)

What's really funny is that I actually used the search in the forums trying to find it first and nothing came up.


And, reading it, this actually makes the problem worse, not better, by making it a watered down Endeavor (which is, of the Voss set, the ship I believe should be deleted as useless.  It's actually designed to reduce the effectiveness of the other ships by cluttering up your list with them to select the superior Endurance and Defiant.)  

RC, I'm not sure what you mean by the Dauntless and Enforcer not being there to support the main line.  With IN I have had a great deal of success using dauntless and enforcer as mobile reserves to shore up the line.  Not that I like line of battle at all, IN I prefer a flying wedge and to then break formation to cross the T against individual ships.

Why Defiant was so horribly nerfed compared to the other two escapes me.  It should have been LB 2 per side in keeping with the other two Voss ships proportions of fire power to a regular cruiser.  The fluff and mini design make it very plain that this is meant as a baby flat top, not a line cruiser.  

The Defiant needs to be either brought into line with the rest of the Voss ships firepower in it's specialty, or given soem other option to make it more viable. 

[horizon]

?
Compared to the current Defiant my proposal has:
-2 lances
+ 4 weapon batteries
+ 2 torpedoes
+ 6+ prow armour

What is wrong about the Endeavour? I think it is pretty okay (with 6+ prow/90* turns, 8 wb in a broadside ain't bad at all).

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

You add Str 2 LBs per side to the Defiant for the cost and you basically make IN an AC oriented fleet. I don't think it should get Str 2 LBs per side.

As for the stats, I've always been the proponent of just adding one more lance and the option to switch them for full Str 6 torps and I think it should be fine.

One thing I noticed. People keep referring to the Voss ships as vessels which can keep up with the line. While the design does support this to be true in the case of the Endeavor and the Endurance, I think it's a mistake to extend that line of thinking with the Defiant. The Defiant is not a ship of the line. It should stay back and support the line by launching fighters and/or bombers.  Carriers should not be sticking with the gunline. Disconnect the thought that the Defiant should stick with the line of battle and you can dispense with the idea that the Defiant should have as much guns as the Endeavor.

As with the Apoc vs Oberon, pure gunships and carriers are a different breed. Do not expect a carrier to have as much firepower, whether by direct or indirect comparisons. Carriers should always lose out the gun battle.

[BaronIveagh]

You add Str 2 LBs per side to the Defiant for the cost and you basically make IN an AC oriented fleet. I don't think it should get Str 2 LBs per side.

As for the stats, I've always been the proponent of just adding one more lance and the option to switch them for full Str 6 torps and I think it should be fine.

One thing I noticed. People keep referring to the Voss ships as vessels which can keep up with the line. While the design does support this to be true in the case of the Endeavor and the Endurance, I think it's a mistake to extend that line of thinking with the Defiant. The Defiant is not a ship of the line. It should stay back and support the line by launching fighters and/or bombers.  Carriers should not be sticking with the gunline. Disconnect the thought that the Defiant should stick with the line of battle and you can dispense with the idea that the Defiant should have as much guns as the Endeavor.

As with the Apoc vs Oberon, pure gunships and carriers are a different breed. Do not expect a carrier to have as much firepower, whether by direct or indirect comparisons. Carriers should always lose out the gun battle.

See, here I agree and disagree: I agree that this strange idea people have of shoving the Defiant into the line of battle is a mistake.  It's the reason I originally proposed+5 cm to it's speed, so that in the event of a break through it could beat a hasty retreat. 

Considering the current list limits, I don't see +2 lb turning IN into a AC fleet, as it would then only match the Dictator rather then exceed it.  (being a Voss ship is either half a Lunar or half a dictator.  As far as the new fleet list limits on Voss variants, I haven't tried them yet to see how this may have changed things.

Horizon: the Endeavour is short ranged and lacks firepower and hit points compared to other line ships.  Where as the other two are useful by increasing LB or lances, both being in demand in IN fleets, the Endeavour simply brings more of the same, in a much more fragile package.

[RCgothic]

Light cruiser role analysis:

The Dauntless is a patrol cruiser. It can chase down pirates and raiders single handed and overpower individual opponents of a similar tonnage by itself. The profile reflects this, focussing on  heavy forward firepower and speed at the expense of all-round protection and toughness. It's essentially a battlecruiser-light, able to outgun or outrun individual opponents, but it really doesn't want to be surrounded.

The Endeavour and Endurance are "Light Ships of the Line". Their focus is on supporting the larger cruisers in a fleet situation. They're more durable than the Dauntless, and thanks to their heavy broadsides they don't mind being surrounded and can more easily engage an enemy that stands and fights. Unlike the larger vessels, they can still react quickly to changing battleship conditions, but pursuing enemy vessels isn't their strongest suit.

The Defiant is an Escort Carrier, not a Fleet Carrier. Its pitifully sized bomber waves are overwhelmed by even modest turret defense, so unlike the other CVs it cannot operate from long range - it MUST stick with the fleet and pick on crippled vessels that the gunline leaves behind, regardless of what speed it may have - this is what makes it a Cruiser of the Line. It's much more useful in a defensive role, using its Fighters and manoeuvrability to put its AC where they're most needed within the battle line.

Unfortunately, its low Ordnance count makes it a low priority for RO checks, and it's even more outgunned by its gunship couterparts (6WBe to 17) than the other CVs are (21 to 33 for Dictator), even before accounting for the fact it has half the Ordnance it's supposed to have on board.

So what's to be done? It can't really fit any more weaponry onto the prow, S2 Lances is already stronger than FP2 WBs and S2 Torps of other Voss.

Option 1: Massive price break. It's a support ship, and it still wouldn't be undercosted at 90pts. This still wouldn't really help it much, as it's a badly broken ship.
Option2: Give it some more AC. This would breaks its ECV role, and will never be accepted officially.
Option3: Give it some Torps. This would help it gain more of a priority in the RO stakes, but the prow is already at max capacity, so this would necessitate a weapons change.
Option4: Give it some more Broadside weaponry. Not reflected by the model.
Option5: Give it some dorsal weaponry. The Zeus-class models can certainly take a dorsal hardpoint, and the argument is that the room not taken up by the undersized launch bays creates enough space to install a modest dorsal armament.
Option6:] More prow weaponry. But the Defiant already has more than standard Voss armament on the prow, there isn't really any capacity left for more.

Of these options, Option 1 is viable, but not attractive, as it doesn't really fix the ship. Options 2, 4 and 6 are not viable. This leaves swapping torps onto the prow and adding and dorsal weaponry.

Horizon accomplished this by S2 Lances -> FP2 WBs and S2 Torps, a slight trade down in firepower to the same as other Voss. FP2 Dorsal was added.

Another option could be:
Prow S1 Lance F/L/R
Prow S2 Torps
Dorsal S1 Lance F/L/R
OR
Dorsal FP3 WBs F/L/R

This is slightly more firepower than Horizon proposed, maintaining its current prow strength but adding Dorsal Weaponry up to half that of a standard cruiser dorsal mount. It would then be able to bring a broadside of 8WBe to one side (2AC are roughly equiv to 2Wbe) similar to the other Voss, and have S2 torps to bump it up the RO priority list, but at the complete expense of any off-side firepower.

Horizon actually took a conservative approach with his profile because the Dorsal mount is a bit controversial, but the Defiant would still be underpowered even with the more powerful upgrade, but as a support ship it may just find enough of a nich supporting an otherwise all-gun fleet line.